The public has been hugely misinformed about incidents like this. Check out the trailer to Hot Coffee (HBO), a documentary that explains why the jury awarded 2.9 million for the coffee spill. I haven't watched it in a while but if I recall correctly, the amount was one day of profits for the California McDonalds', meant to correct their behaviour because they knew full well their coffee could cause the kind of burns this woman experienced.
This is a great watch if you have access to it. It will change the way you see the justice system.
I would imagine Tim Horton's will be learning a lesson from this. If not. They deserve to be sued.
Comparing their cups to McDonalds is a joke. The fact that they often or at least previously would give away 2 cups is just stupid and wasteful. My friend said his Dad is so cheap he goes to Tim's orders an extra large, they hand him 2 cups and he pours in half one for him and one for his wife. We refer to it as the "Mel Special".
I do have to say, I get the steeped Tea at Tim's and I usually have to leave it for 20 minutes before I even start drinking it and it is definitely too hot to hold without a sleeve.
__________________
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
- Aristotle
Tea is made with boiling water, you order it your ordering a cup of boiling water, don't give it to a three year old
The article says the cup was knocked over onto the kid, did you even read it? The tea wasn't given to a three year old.
Further the article seems to have been updated to say people have been harassing the family online. People are a bunch of annoying pricks.
The guy has an accident injure his kid and asks a valid question about how it could've been avoided and as usual all the online super parents come out of to remind them how superior they are.
__________________
A few weeks after crashing head-first into the boards (denting his helmet and being unable to move for a little while) following a hit from behind by Bob Errey, the Calgary Flames player explains:
"I was like Christ, lying on my back, with my arms outstretched, crucified"
-- Frank Musil - Early January 1994
Last edited by Igottago; 07-17-2016 at 02:23 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to Igottago For This Useful Post:
Hot Coffee while very enlightening about the McDonalds case is a rather scary look at the legislative changes that business interests pushed in the last 20 years to make it harder for people to hold businesses accountable to their employees, customers.
It should be a must watch for those that think people are overzealous money grabbing idiots who sue companies. Of course a small minority are, but wow, the extent at which people's rights to get compensation have dramatically changed and the McDonalds case was intentionally used as propaganda to help legislation pass all over the US to protect businesses and screw over customers, and employees.
If you can't watch the documentary, check out this 10 min news story on it, which will make you hate humanity.
i think that the majority of people were upset with the lawsuit because it seemed to be something wholly preventable by the plantiff...
she apparently had the coffee between her knees, in an effort to add sugar/cream to it as their car didn't have cup holders...the car was parked at the time
While i don't disagree that coffee was too hot, it just seemed like another case of someone not accepting their own responsibility for their mistakes.
Certainly, MacDonald's lawyers made a huge miscalculation in not settling out of court...but they probably saw it the same way...
Its like people still suing cigarette companies, even though smoking has been linked to health issues since the 80s at minimum...
No, the majority of people were upset because they didn't know the facts of the case, the media wildly misreported this and people simplified the case to a point of absurdity.
McDonalds did change the temp of the coffee after this case, and had a list of similar incidents over the decades. This woman simply asked to help cover her bills and you could not find a doctor who saw her severe burns who would say, well coffee is hot, her fault.
Coffee at home is made at a much lower temperature, Mcdonalds stubbornly kept it at this insane temperature until it final reached the media and cost them some significant money.
__________________ Allskonar fyrir Aumingja!!
The Following User Says Thank You to Thor For This Useful Post:
No, the majority of people were upset because they didn't know the facts of the case, the media wildly misreported this and people simplified the case to a point of absurdity.
McDonalds did change the temp of the coffee after this case, and had a list of similar incidents over the decades. This woman simply asked to help cover her bills and you could not find a doctor who saw her severe burns who would say, well coffee is hot, her fault.
Coffee at home is made at a much lower temperature, Mcdonalds stubbornly kept it at this insane temperature until it final reached the media and cost them some significant money.
so you are saying the woman had zero fault in this?
Weird, i'd been drinking macdonald's coffee for years before this case, and never got burnt once...of course, i figured that squeezing the cup between my legs to add sugar probably wasn't a good idea....
She had fault, but the jury, the judge, all the medical people involved said there is no reason for the coffee to be at this extreme temperature, and that this was negligence on the part of McDonalds, especially considering the history of people who had similar brutal burns.
You have been drinking a cooler version of the coffee that was served in the 80s, if you spill coffee on yourself today you won't be having skin grafts and suffering for years because of it. You can think this lady for that.
so you are saying the woman had zero fault in this?
Weird, i'd been drinking macdonald's coffee for years before this case, and never got burnt once...of course, i figured that squeezing the cup between my legs to add sugar probably wasn't a good idea....
It doesn't matter if she had some fault.
The fact is the coffee was being served beyond a reasonable temperature, that is likely to injure someone at some point.
In the real world, people will make mistakes like spilling coffee on themselves and they shouldn't get severe burns from a simple mistake which is easily preventable by the coffee company.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Winsor_Pilates For This Useful Post:
She had fault, but the jury, the judge, all the medical people involved said there is no reason for the coffee to be at this extreme temperature, and that this was negligence on the part of McDonalds, especially considering the history of people who had similar brutal burns.
You have been drinking a cooler version of the coffee that was served in the 80s, if you spill coffee on yourself today you won't be having skin grafts and suffering for years because of it. You can think this lady for that.
the lawsuit was in 1992. Sadly, i can assure you i've been drinking McDonald's coffee for years before that...and therefore the 'super hot' coffee that is central to the case.
Ultimately, the actual judgement was reduced to a number below 500k, as the court reduced the published jury award from 2.7 million to that number, and then they two parties settled out of court...
if there was universal health care in the US, there's a chance this would have never seen the light of day, as the initial desire was simply to pay for medical costs incurred out of pocket...
She was at fault; that's why the judgement was reduced in the first place. McDonald's lawyers made a huge gaff in not settling out of court.
It doesn't matter if she had some fault.
The fact is the coffee was being served beyond a reasonable temperature, that is likely to injure someone at some point.
In the real world, people will make mistakes like spilling coffee on themselves and they shouldn't get severe burns from a simple mistake which is easily preventable by the coffee company.
Well put.
Yeah, maybe she could have been a little more careful and not spilled. But spills happen, sometimes by accident, and they should be a simple "ow" type injury, not third degree burns and skin grafts.
the lawsuit was in 1992. Sadly, i can assure you i've been drinking McDonald's coffee for years before that...and therefore the 'super hot' coffee that is central to the case.
Ultimately, the actual judgement was reduced to a number below 500k, as the court reduced the published jury award from 2.7 million to that number, and then they two parties settled out of court...
if there was universal health care in the US, there's a chance this would have never seen the light of day, as the initial desire was simply to pay for medical costs incurred out of pocket...
She was at fault; that's why the judgement was reduced in the first place. McDonald's lawyers made a huge gaff in not settling out of court.
So not sure your argument here, since you have not spilled McDonalds coffee on your self it argues against her for suing the company?
Or do you argue that the coffee temp should be fine like it was, in that it could cause such severe burns?
